There's a new patch coming out and everything about it will only be worse unless designers get with the noting....

This time, can some effort be made to advertise and define the proposed changes before the release?

As seen, not doing so does nothing to abate the ****storm. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to placate the critics (read 'me')/at least allow them to feel they've had a chance to comment rather than just being confronted with a fait accompli. Given the timeline on these things, it's also handy if one has a good idea of precisely what is going to change as one works on designs. It's hell to discover the 'feature' one has been exploiting is about to be defined as a 'bug' and whisked away.

+1

Regardless of who does the bean spilling, some kind of heads up would be nice.

This isn't exactly a big-money property we're talking about. It might be pleasant to think someone cares, but no one does. Should you 'reveal' this information, WHO is going to take advantage of it, how, and why?

We're talking about relatively trivial tweaks to a program that is fifteen years old or something and has a potential audience numbering in the hundreds. We're not even talking about the actual changes to the code, but merely the expected effects of those changes.

Let's get real. Send whoever an e-mail, ask if it's okay to discuss what's to be put in the next patch, and get his authorization.

Hmm Is it always like this in this forum, that the threads ends up in a completely new discussion. I dont find much connection to the issue "defence strenght in patch 3.4" in most of the resent posts. As for me who started this discussion I think that there is more information/ experiences to discuss about my first post. I also thinks that the forum would be more easy to follow, if new interesting topics where posted in a new thread.

However, the dire effects of lack of cooperation are a bit much for most situations, ...

I'm dubious that there are dire effects. The tests I did showed a very slight effect. Remember that, prior to 3.4, there was some bug causing non-cooperation to perversely be beneficial. That bug was never found - we just overpowered it with the new penalties. So the total penalty is less than the nominal levels stated.

This time, can some effort be made to advertise and define the proposed changes before the release?

You mean like was done last time?

Let's review: The "What's New" for 3.4 was posted on this board on 7/26/2010. There was a beta posted shortly after that, as well. The final release wasn't until 2/2/2011. That's over six months advance notice. And that discounts the information in the Wishlist document - that detailed some of the completed features well before that.

We testers can't reveal anything, but the Matrix officials can, if they choose to.

LOL! Considering your the 'oldest' playtester amoung us, Bob, I wouldn't expect anything from a patch to overwhelm YOU..........I 'could' see some of the details being missed by a 'new' designer, though. What I was really talking about is the use of 3.4 and later bits being used to run the 'Classic' scenarios and any developed by a new designer.

I suppose you're talking about something other than the new combat model then. I was just objecting to any assumption that the anecdotal complaints about that constitute a settled issue. I remain a skeptic till we get some real proof.

Sorry I did not post my 2 cents last night, now echoing your thoughts, -- we have gotten far afield from the original post -- which was why is one guy's experience so different on 3.4 vs earlier versions.

I think the side track (who gets notice of engine changes affecting scenario design and play, when) is worthy of at least a thread (or thread of threads) in its own right.

But cutting back to the start of this -- I don't think we've helped a lot in resolving Carolus' questions. (And thanks to folks like Telumar, Klink and others who worked at this earlier.) I do think Telumar has identified some key areas with the 3.4 changes and the need for planned heavy shelling on fort. positions, but maybe there's something else to look at.

Has Carolus tried emailling the designers -- I'm guessing he's playing Sil's mod of Gott. and I know Rob K visits here; both men are responsive, and they may have insights.

Has Carolus tried playing a newer scenario -- like Klink's 48 Panzer or Telumar's Anzio 2KM or any scenario rolled out since summer 2010 -- and played that vs PO (with toawlog) and then vs a human ? (yeah -- that's a lot of work, but sometimes that is how you learn)

I think that in EA the new defence bonus has a special impact as mere Artillery units are rare in the scenario, erspecially in the early going (due to unit scope). To prevent misunderstanding, i don't have a 'problem' per se with the new system, and it works fine in my own designs, which however have all come out or been updated under 3.4. And have plenty of artillery besides that.. and all emphasizing formation cooperation, especially Anzio. Until now i didn't encounter any issues in Exporter which has been built under 3.2 or earlier(?) (Colin may correct me).

Still the bulk of the scenarios has been designed and tested under older versions, but compared to other games (WitE i.e.) TOAW comes with a plethora of scenarios, which makes it impossible to a) test them all in regard to combat model changes and/or b) get in touch with the majority of designers (some of them having left TOAW) and thus c) provide them with the latest Beta or pre-release build apart from legal/NDA etc issues... There couldn't be any progress in the combat model if we would account for every possible imbalance in one scenario or 10% of the scenarios..

I just observed players, new ones, veterans and "returners" either complaining or, for the most part, stating to observe this matter closely (which sure is understandable). Maybe this isn't a real matter after all as its just the few of us here.

However, the dire effects of lack of cooperation are a bit much for most situations, ...

I'm dubious that there are dire effects. The tests I did showed a very slight effect. Remember that, prior to 3.4, there was some bug causing non-cooperation to perversely be beneficial. That bug was never found - we just overpowered it with the new penalties. So the total penalty is less than the nominal levels stated.

This time, can some effort be made to advertise and define the proposed changes before the release?

You mean like was done last time?

Let's review: The "What's New" for 3.4 was posted on this board on 7/26/2010. There was a beta posted shortly after that, as well. The final release wasn't until 2/2/2011. That's over six months advance notice. And that discounts the information in the Wishlist document - that detailed some of the completed features well before that.

I hate to admit it, but you're right. I was congratulating myself at the time for my wisdom in not touching the patch until the final release -- but obviously, that tactic came with a cost.

quote:

We testers can't reveal anything, but the Matrix officials can, if they choose to.

As noted, in context I really find it impossible to take that assertion seriously. I suspect you merely prefer not to ask.

Until now i didn't encounter any issues in Exporter which has been built under 3.2 or earlier(?) (Colin may correct me).

No -- but then, Exporter never was seriously tested or balanced in the first place -- so no fine balance to be lost.

There's no particular reason why development couldn't continue under 3.4 as opposed to some earlier version. If anything, the possibility of having finite supply lines should solve some problems with simulating matters out in the desert.

I am playing RTM Smolensk and Sil Mod of Götterdamung, both stated to be updated to 3.4. When testing my "feeling" that de defence had improved considerably I tested italy 1944-45 which is not updated för 3.4 There is not many scen updated for 3.4 in the original game. I play two of the few.

Klink has offered me a look at the other side of the hill, i am now playing as the defending Sov in the latest version ov RTM Smolensk. It will be realy interesting to se if I will have the same feeling as defender, or if I am just weening when my attacks isent succesfull. But most replies seams to agre that the attacks, if not toughter, ned more considerations. You have to use the art IOT "digup" the defender if Entrenced or fortified (I have tried this in Gött, but very seldom succeds) and THE ATTACKS WILL NEED MORE TIME AND PLANNING: YOU CANT BREAK THROUGH IN ONE TURN. This is a major change, the very idea of TOAW (at lest stated so when I bought my first issue back in the mid 90th) is the turn system, where you can break through the enemy line, and still exploit the break through in the same turn.. Anyone who has succeded in this in patch 3.4 please let me know.

I have not been in contact to any of the developers, I am just one of those guys, who has enjoyed the game, without having any deper tought about whats under the hood. Trying to see it as an operational art, but even an artist has to know someting about his instruments when they not perform as expected.

Carolus Rex (I had to look that one up), Herr Oberst, et al, First, thanks for the comments regarding the RTM series. Since 3.4 came out I have been working on a revised version of the series, with some help from Fire in the East, and the TOAW Forum for Battle for Moscow.

Not a lot of major changes- but I have tried to balance the VP to give a victory rather than a draw to the Germans for obtaining the historic objective, a number of relatively minor OB and TOE changes (a lot of research, event changes-especially shock and supply "tweaks" using 3.4, movement biases, etc, etc).

My personal philosophy is a war sim should give, with a little luck, the historic result using the historic strategy and tactics. As a single designer trying to orchestrate eight sims, I rely a lot on PO-PO testing. However I have been playing against the PO Soviet (much better as Stalin3.4, thanks team). Right now I am working on VI. At the Gates, and I find it, pardon me, challenging. I can just get across the Moscow Canal, but not take Tula. That said, I will try to get the series posted in the near future. It is always "just one more tweak" (think: TOAWv3.4) cheers all, Rob

Thanks for the response, i think that the RTM series is some of the best scenarious for TOAW, optimal level, lenght, size and use of terrain. If interested I can mail some save files from my e-mail game, IOT give you "reports from the front" human vs human.

Here is an example of defense strengh gone crazy IMO,Im attacking the German infantry battalion fortified and almost surrounded no mattaer what combination of units,Artillery and airpower i use the attack planner predicts me heavy losses and a very poor chance of success i figure attacking you need at least 3/1 odds in favour but i can bring to bear 20/1 if not more plus artillery and airpower but i still get the same results predicted the same happened last turn i got heavy losses and this battalion stood fast still fortified BTW i have conducted 2 rounds of bombardments on this hex

The German battalion is fortified and in a fortified line. According to What's New that's an 11.31 modifier. That's pretty hefty. Heavy artillery before an assault could help tremendously.

I don't know what the cooperation levels are for the Soviet units. If they are not all free to cooperate with one another that could be anywhere from an 17% reduction up to a 33% reduction in your attacking unit's combat strength.

Your units look a little tired too.

At the same time, it seems that you should be able to move the unit out.

It has always been an irritation that engineers have absolutely no documented combat role. They should be able to have some documented affect against fortified lines/units such as the one pictured by sapper.

Yes some of the units are tired and are not included in the attack,The co'operation level is ok same colour flags in the attack planner i havent yet finished the turn so not sure how it will turn out i dont think i can squeeze another round of artillery strikes as two rounds cost me 30% if i have another round i may not have enough mp's left to assault the hex so my infantry will have to put there bodies on the line.

...The co'operation level is ok same colour flags in the attack planner...

I have the impression those flags can be hinky, depending on what order you click on the units.

I don't place too much faith in them to begin with, so I haven't studied what they do carefully, but it does seem as if you can select -- say -- an artillery unit that can cooperate with everyone and the program will then answer the question 'can this unit cooperate with everyone?'

The answer of course is 'yes,' and all the flags go green. However, click on another unit and you may get a different array of flags. Yes, a will cooperate with b and c. But what about b cooperating with c?

...but these things tend to involve some unusual factor -- whereas TOAW needs to model the typical. We don't want an engine that delivers correct results for 5% of the outcomes -- and results that are totally off for 95%.

As I recall...

At Bastogne, the Germans never figured they would take the town immediately. They were primarily concerned to seal it off -- which they did.

Frost at Arnhem bridge had a rather small area to defend. Two houses, if I recall correctly.

Seelowe Heights was the most impressive example of the late-war German tactic of preparing an entire alternative set of positions and then redeploying into them at the last minute, allowing the Russian sledgehammer to hit vacant ground.

However, and on the other hand, I always thought TOAW actually favored the attacker to an excessive extent. You could always hammer even the best defenders out even the most well-defended locales -- which wasn't right.

Then too, I am curious to what extent these outcomes are actually due to the newly prohibitive penalties on uncooperative units.

There is one thing I'd like to point out concerning overwhelming odds. Demyansk.

I suppose there are other examples.

Velikiye Luki comes to mind. I should say the hell hole of...

There is a point where given troops of sufficient quality, enough of them, and continuing replacements and supplies, a position becomes simply untakable.

Verdun would be a good example. Eventually, the Germans just had to accept that they weren't going to make further progress. It didn't matter how much more artillery they brought up.

Of course, a Verdun might best be modeled by an endless succession of fresh units moving in and being able to promptly and completely fortify. However, the Germans neither could nor in TOAW should be able to just take the hex in one turn, once the French have enough defenders in the hex.

Ditto for Sevastopol in 1942. Had the Russians somehow been able to bring in additional units at will, it's problematical if the Germans ever could have taken the 'hex' -- and in fact, that's more or less what happened at Stalingrad that fall. The Germans were making progress -- but at a pace that would be hard to model in TOAW.

If any change is called for, it might be to both make 'fortified' -- as opposed to 'defending,' or 'entrenched' -- status harder to attain, and to make it still easier for units moving into the same hex to take over that status. Some French division moving into the line at Verdun didn't take more than a few hours to be substantially as fortified as its predecessor.

Then too, I often thought that the distinction between low-proficiency troops and high proficiency troops should diminish as the warfare becomes more static -- although this raises the issue of various kinds of low- and high- proficiency. However, summarizing the outcomes detailed in Glantz's books on the 1942 campaign suggests that while one German was worth five Russians in mobile warfare, the ratio fell to more like 1:2 if matters became positional. The German advantages of better and more flexible fire support, better and more flexible command and control, better and more flexibly trained soldiers, etc diminished as the fighting became more a matter of we are here in this cellar, and they are there in that ruined storehouse, and we know it, and they know it, and we know they know it, and they know we know...

...but these things tend to involve some unusual factor -- whereas TOAW needs to model the typical. We don't want an engine that delivers correct results for 5% of the outcomes -- and results that are totally off for 95%.

As I recall...

At Bastogne, the Germans never figured they would take the town immediately. They were primarly concerned to seal it off -- which they did.

Frost at Arnhem bridge had a rather small area to defend. Two houses, if I recall correctly

Seelowe Heights was the most impressive example of the late-war German tactic of preparing an entire alternative set of positions and then redeploying into them at the last minute, allowing the Russian sledgehammer to hit vacant ground.

Let's account 'unusual factors' for Arnhem bridge and even Seelow. But Bastogne seems more like a 'typical' example. After all the Germans were not content with just isolating it. They actually attacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright However, and on the other hand, I always thought TOAW actually favored the attacker to an excessive extent. You could always hammer the best defenders out the most well-defended locales -- which wasn't right.

Then too, I am curious to what extent these outcomes are actually due to the newly prohibitive penalties on uncooperative units.

From sapper's screenshot i even can't tell if the defenders were subject to the flanking penalty. Unless he provides us with more detail, preferably a .sal we can't tell.. neither about cooperation nor flanking or such..